Killing a civilian by beheading him is sick IMO. What I don't understand is that these animals get fair treatment in Gitmo and then when they miss a meal they cry and complain. Where is the outrage in this country?

I'd argue there is some pretty good outrage at the moment. Newspapers and talking heads which usually provide a protective barrier for the president are ripping him to shreds for making a few remarks and then running off to play golf.

This ISIS threat is pretty bad. When you have politicians saying it is not a question of "if" but rather "when" they strike something in the US it has to make everyone concerned.

Problem solved... the next extremist group will find another country to annoy.

The problem with this strategy is these groups always manage to get women and children as human shields in their strongholds... so then the if we bomb them, we're murdering women and children and that's the storyline... not the fact that the terrorist group had them there in the first place.

Problem solved... the next extremist group will find another country to annoy.

The problem with this strategy is these groups always manage to get women and children as human shields in their strongholds... so then the if we bomb them, we're murdering women and children and that's the storyline... not the fact that the terrorist group had them there in the first place.

True. But, the problem lies with the people themselves. The non-extremist citizens know who the "bad guys" are, but do nothing to eliminate them. (Similar to how the American public complains about the politicians but keep on re-electing them to office, or how a family would protect one of its own who is a criminal.) Terrorists are the minority in the Middle East, but it doesn't appear that the peaceful people are willing to kill (or turn over to the proper authorities) their friends, neighbors, or family members who are terrorists. These people allow religious fanatics to run their governments (nation-wide or local) and oppress the people with barbaric laws. If they won't help themselves, why should we send in our military to die for them?

I say leave them alone. But, should the terrorists not be satisfied with killing their own kind and want to attack the West again, then nuke 'em all.

That said, if I had the power to change just one thing in the world, I'd strongly consider doing away with religion completely and permanently. Religion is the cause of a lot of horror in this world.

If they won't help themselves, why should we send in our military to die for them?

I say leave them alone.

There is serious intelligence that ISIS is planning attacks on U.S. soil. So leaving them alone is not an option either.

We left Al Qaeda alone even after Bin Laden declared a fatwa against the United States and 9/11 happened.

The problem really comes down to the stomach for the fight. We get hit, we drop a few bombs, we kill a couple of terrorist leaders and then we start feeling bad about the collateral damage and start opposing the war.

Tell the people to eliminate their countrymen that are terrorists, or we eliminate everyone.

Or, give the terrorists another target. The terrorists hate US policies that meddle in their affairs, so tell them the truth. US Foreign Policy is dictated not by a US Government of the people, for the people, and by the people, but by Big Business. IMO, capitalism and business is fine, but Big Business is the enemy of the average citizen. Tell the terrorists just exactly who these people are who meddle in other nations' affairs and start wars just for profit. Give them names and locations. Hand them over on a silver platter. I for one would love to see Big Business (and their influence) removed from our government.

If they won't help themselves, why should we send in our military to die for them?

I say leave them alone.

There is serious intelligence that ISIS is planning attacks on U.S. soil. So leaving them alone is not an option either.

We left Al Qaeda alone even after Bin Laden declared a fatwa against the United States and 9/11 happened.

The problem really comes down to the stomach for the fight. We get hit, we drop a few bombs, we kill a couple of terrorist leaders and then we start feeling bad about the collateral damage and start opposing the war.

Then we get hit again and all of a sudden we have the stomach again.

What we do is send our military over there to die. Like Viet Nam, the politicians never allow the military to complete the job. How long have we been there now? Seems to me that they don't want an end to this, as certain people are making a tidy profit from war. I say pull out and leave them to their own devices, or turn the area into a parking lot.

In other words, let them continue to grow and gain power, money and weaponry and plot attacks on our homeland with no disturbance.

Quote:

or turn the area into a parking lot.

And piss off the rest of the world because we used nukes again and killed thousands, maybe millions of "innocents". That will give countries like Russia and China a green light to either do the same where they see fit or pull the trigger on their longtime strategy of removing the dollar as the international currency, thereby crushing our economy.

The answer is not in extremes, do nothing or do everything.

The answer is in smart, well thought out strategy. Something that has been failing from our leadership for a long time.

The answer is in smart, well thought out strategy. Something that has been failing from our leadership for a long time.

Okay, I agree that my solutions may be too extreme. But, conventional ground warfare won't work when the enemy is not distinguishable from the innocent population. Diplomacy also doesn't work, because these "people" are deranged. They are like a cancer that must be excised, even if some healthy skin must be removed in order to do so. As you said, something different needs to be done in this situation, but I still believe that certain people don't want a solution; they want profits.

The answer is in smart, well thought out strategy. Something that has been failing from our leadership for a long time.

Okay, I agree that my solutions may be too extreme. But, conventional ground warfare won't work when the enemy is not distinguishable from the innocent population. Diplomacy also doesn't work, because these "people" are deranged. They are like a cancer that must be excised, even if some healthy skin must be removed in order to do so. As you said, something different needs to be done in this situation, but I still believe that certain people don't want a solution; they want profits.

You're right about conventional warfare and diplomacy not working. I think we've seen that already. That's where I think intelligence needs to improve and we need to be more ruthless in our approach, but it needs to be targeted.

You also may be onto something in regards to money being involved. There are companies/people that benefit from conflict.

You also may be onto something in regards to money being involved. There are companies/people that benefit from conflict.

That's where I think intelligence needs to improve and we need to be more ruthless in our approach, but it needs to be targeted.

When Bush was in office, it was common knowledge that Cheney's old company Haliburton was raking in the money during Desert Storm as a private contractor. How did it all start? Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait, and oil company profits were threatened. Hussein was never a threat to the American people, but Foreign Policy is dictated by Big Business, so off to war we went! And, like Viet Nam, can't end the war too soon... got to drag it out for years and squeeze as many dollars from the US taxpayers as possible.

Is our intelligence community following the money that funds ISIS? They should have the capability of doing that. Eliminate (permanently) the financial backers and stop the cash flow to the terrorists. Surround the terrorist strongholds and wait as their supplies run dry. Sounds logical, but what happens if the people backing the terrorists are the multi-national Big Businesses that control/own the politicians? If that's the case, then we get prolonged war with one enemy following another as their profits soar. We went from Hussein to Al-Qaeda to the Taliban to ISIS, and when the ISIS threat is downgraded who will they prop up next to keep the war machine rolling? Find out who is making money from these wars, and you'll find the real enemy of the American people!

When Bush was in office, it was common knowledge that Cheney's old company Haliburton was raking in the money during Desert Storm as a private contractor. How did it all start? Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait, and oil company profits were threatened. Hussein was never a threat to the American people, but Foreign Policy is dictated by Big Business, so off to war we went! And, like Viet Nam, can't end the war too soon... got to drag it out for years and squeeze as many dollars from the US taxpayers as possible.

Desert Storm was a United Nations initiative with several countries involved. And we were not there for years. We won the war outright and got out of there.

I think you have your wars confused.

Quote:

Is our intelligence community following the money that funds ISIS? They should have the capability of doing that. Eliminate (permanently) the financial backers and stop the cash flow to the terrorists. Surround the terrorist strongholds and wait as their supplies run dry. Sounds logical, but what happens if the people backing the terrorists are the multi-national Big Businesses that control/own the politicians? If that's the case, then we get prolonged war with one enemy following another as their profits soar. We went from Hussein to Al-Qaeda to the Taliban to ISIS, and when the ISIS threat is downgraded who will they prop up next to keep the war machine rolling? Find out who is making money from these wars, and you'll find the real enemy of the American people!

I get the oil argument in countries like Iraq, but not Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a country pretty much bereft of natural resources, except for poppy. I don't see a business interest angle in Afghanistan.

"I get the oil argument in countries like Iraq, but not Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a country pretty much bereft of natural resources, except for poppy. I don't see a business interest angle in Afghanistan."

True. But, there is a huge business interest in war whether natural resources are involved or not. As I said, certain people and companies get rich during war, and I don't think they care about the end result, as long as war continues somewhere to keep the money flowing into their pockets.